This thread focuses on pictures and I'm not sure if it should be in random pics or transportation, so I'm sorry if it's in the wrong section. Anyway, here it goes:

Shanghai, China

Japan

Typical Sao Paolo, Brazil

 

Sao Paolo, Brazil

Moscow, Russia

Shanghai, China

Italy

shanghai, China

Swindon England

 

 

 

And one of our better known domestic disasters: Los Angeles

Works either place.... but it would be good to identify the source and location of the photos.

 

Great advertisment for rail & transit.

They may be bad planning, but all the images are wonderfully enjoyable.

Works either place.... but it would be good to identify the source and location of the photos.

 

Great advertisment for rail & transit.

 

Sorry bout that, I forgot to add the locations. I also added one of Los Angeles. Unfortunately I don't have sources for these pics.

Wonderfully enjoyable?  These images make me sick.  (With the exception of Swindon England, that one just makes me laugh.)  But seriously, imagining the amount of resources that have been wasted on "speeding people up."  When time and time again we observer that it actually slows people down AND adds countless amounts of stress to everyone's lives. 

What really gets to me though, is that shit like this gets ALL of our tax support, and other forms of transit get none.  PLUS, we still subsidize gas. 

 

I'm sorry, but these pictures really made me upset. 

 

On a light note though, as of tomorrow I will be working within three blocks of my house.  Thank the lord, I'm done commuting. 

The second picture of Sao Paolo is almost pretty.

They're enjoyable in a sense that it's fascinating to see how truely bad it can get. The chaos is astounding.

Wonderfully enjoyable?  These images make me sick.  (With the exception of Swindon England, that one just makes me laugh.)  But seriously, imagining the amount of resources that have been wasted on "speeding people up."  When time and time again we observer that it actually slows people down AND adds countless amounts of stress to everyone's lives. 

What really gets to me though, is that sh!t like this gets ALL of our tax support, and other forms of transit get none.  PLUS, we still subsidize gas ... 

 

Yes, the whole thing is screwed, but some days you have to laugh just to keep from crying. It's better than getting your shorts in a bunch, because the only one who feels the pain is you. :wink:

That last pic is near San Fransico.

Columbus, OH; I-70-I-71 split. It even LOOKS like a frowny-face.

 

Dekalb, Georgia

 

Poor Randy having to put up with it  :laugh:

That last one may look nasty but it actually makes the most sense -- it provides every connection that would be needed, has no cloverleafs, left-hand exits, or weaving, and squeezes it into about the smallest amount of space possible.  Of course, the important point might be that the money would be more effectively spent on rail, but as far as highways go, it's not that bad.

Here we go:

 

http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2008/03/worlds-worst-intersections-traffic-jams.html

^^haha omg... they have Rt 440 in Jersey.. that's the end of I-287 which turns into 440 and takes you into Staten Island.. it intersects with the Turnpike, the Parkway, Rt. 9 and a bunch of other roads and yeah, that thing is horrible.. you DO NOT want to miss your exit there because you're done for if you do haha

Yeah, the stack interchange is the most efficient free-flowing interchange that currently exists. There are no weaving issues, no looped ramps, high-speed directional ramps, but the cost is far higher for the elevated platforms. See also: Texas for some really beautiful, modern examples.

 

^ Interstate 64/Waterfront Expressway in downtown Louisville. To help counter the issue with the freeway, which at the time of its construction in the early 1970s, went through some very poor and industrialized areas, the city constructed a park on top of the freeway. The steel framework in the background was a LG&E substation, but it was demolished for Museum Plaza. It doesn't make sense to demolish this freeway until the East End Bridge is completed.

 

^ Still one of my favorite drives, although it does split the city in half. It was constructed in the 1970s through what was then the Red Light District. Today, it could have been repurposed for fantastic urban development along the scenic Elk River, where it joins with the Kanawha. The interchange in the foreground is for US 119 South (Corridor G) and it was one of the largest earth moving projects in the United States for an interchange at the time.

 

^ Fort Hill interchange u/c in 1973 (US 119 South). 1,000 homes were once along Interstate 64's alignment south of the Kanawha River... although there wasn't really room anywhere else for an interstate.

 

I have a few more that haven't been posted regarding the cantilivered portions of Interstate 64/77 as they pass by the Capitol. The amount of engineering that went into building the downtown viaduct, and the remainder was just amazing. As the interstate passes by the Capitol complex, six lanes are squeezed into a very confining amount of space, interlaced with a tri-stack diamond interchange, a cantilevered segment, integrating the viaducts _into_ buildings, intricate vertical retaining walls and two Kanawha River spans. On the other end near South Charleston/Dunbar was the largest steel girder bridge in North America at the time of its completion in 1973. A second span is being added that will boast the longest continuous segmental span in North America.

sweet mother of mercy... it's pictures like these that make me glad I DON'T drive... that first from Shanghai one wasn't a highway, it was a freakin' amusement park ride...

Golden Glades Interchange/Nightmare

Miami, FL

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zX-BgCWtbeM

The Swindon photo is the "Magic Roundabout", and it's actually considered quite efficient.  It replaced a regular intersection of several streets.

The Swindon photo is the "Magic Roundabout", and it's actually considered quite efficient.  It replaced a regular intersection of several streets.

 

That's amazing because all I see is urban design that must be the result of a massive Salvia trip inducing non-euclidean geometry and possibly even the transcendence of time and space. In other words it is confusing as hell and If I ever came across an intersection like that, I would go apesh!t.

Actually, that helix in Shanghai seems somewhat organized and efficient.

I don't know how the Swindon Magic Roundablout could possibly be efficient.  Here, watch this video of someone making a simple left hand turn through the intersection.  (Note that you should turn down your speakers because the music is just plain bad.)  I haven't the slightest clue what I would do if I approached this.  Also note that there aren't any navigation signs once you're in it. Here:

 

 

 

That was SCARY. Slipping into the 7th (traffic) circle of hell entails techno music!

I hear the theme from Benny Hill (Yakkety Sax) when I look at the Swindon photo.

I used to accidentally go to Kentucky all the time when I would try to go to the west side. Getting in the right lane was just intuitive to me, but you have to be in the left lane to go right.

I didnt want to make a new thread for a simple question that probably wont be discussed in great length, and this seemed like the closest relevant thread for it. But what is the point of having "truck lanes" while going through very rural and isolated places on highways? We drove to myrtle beach 2 weeks ago and while in west virginia, virginia, and north carolina there were places where the highway went from 2 lanes to 3 lanes for only about 1 to 3 miles at a time and the third lane was designated "truck lane." It seems like an absolute waste of money to have an additional lane every 30 to 60 miles that only lasts for 1 mile. And i noticed a lot of new construction along these roads that seemed to be adding more random truck lanes. Is it just to spend money that local, state, and federal agencies give out or is there really a serious need for these mile long lanes?

I didnt want to make a new thread for a simple question that probably wont be discussed in great length, and this seemed like the closest relevant thread for it. But what is the point of having "truck lanes" while going through very rural and isolated places on highways? We drove to myrtle beach 2 weeks ago and while in west virginia, virginia, and north carolina there were places where the highway went from 2 lanes to 3 lanes for only about 1 to 3 miles at a time and the third lane was designated "truck lane." It seems like an absolute waste of money to have an additional lane every 30 to 60 miles that only lasts for 1 mile. And i noticed a lot of new construction along these roads that seemed to be adding more random truck lanes. Is it just to spend money that local, state, and federal agencies give out or is there really a serious need for these mile long lanes?

In many places along I-77 through the states you mentioned the truck lanes are on the up-hill portions of the freeway where due to the grade, many heavily loaded trucks can't keep up with auto traffic. This way the trucks can slow down and use a lower gear to get the horsepower needed to pull a heavy load up the mountain side, without affecting cars that don't have a problem getting up the same hills.

I didnt want to make a new thread for a simple question that probably wont be discussed in great length, and this seemed like the closest relevant thread for it. But what is the point of having "truck lanes" while going through very rural and isolated places on highways? We drove to myrtle beach 2 weeks ago and while in west virginia, virginia, and north carolina there were places where the highway went from 2 lanes to 3 lanes for only about 1 to 3 miles at a time and the third lane was designated "truck lane." It seems like an absolute waste of money to have an additional lane every 30 to 60 miles that only lasts for 1 mile. And i noticed a lot of new construction along these roads that seemed to be adding more random truck lanes. Is it just to spend money that local, state, and federal agencies give out or is there really a serious need for these mile long lanes?

In many places along I-77 through the states you mentioned the truck lanes are on the up-hill portions of the freeway where due to the grade, many heavily loaded trucks can't keep up with auto traffic. This way the trucks can slow down and use a lower gear to get the horsepower needed to pull a heavy load up the mountain side, without affecting cars that don't have a problem getting up the same hills.

 

I was going mental at the sights of these everytime i saw them due to people in government saying spending money on rail service is a waste of money yet these lanes are spread all over the place. Thanks for the explanation!

Yes, they are there for trucks to climb the hills. On any appreciable grade, trucks can lose any momentum and speed they may have had and crawl up the hills. Interstate 64 in eastern West Virginia is about as rural as you can get, and the segment completed in 1988 has a 7-mile 7% grade (the maximum grade is 6% on interstates, but this was granted a rare exemption), and trucks will climb the hill anywhere from 5 to 30 MPH depending on load. Going downhill, they are restricted to just 45 MPH, and there are three runaway ramps -- which are used with frequency.

Yes, they are there for trucks to climb the hills. On any appreciable grade, trucks can lose any momentum and speed they may have had and crawl up the hills. Interstate 64 in eastern West Virginia is about as rural as you can get, and the segment completed in 1988 has a 7-mile 7% grade (the maximum grade is 6% on interstates, but this was granted a rare exemption), and trucks will climb the hill anywhere from 5 to 30 MPH depending on load. Going downhill, they are restricted to just 45 MPH, and there are three runaway ramps -- which are used with frequency.

 

The runaway ramps are probably used most frequently by newer drivers who don't have a lot of experience on that type of grades. The air brakes can run out of air really quick if they aren't used to it.

Here's the result of expanding highways into the suburbs rather than investing in existing neighborhoods of a metro area that hasn't grown in population since the early 1960s. This is an urban prairie "The Forgotten Triangle" in Cleveland's Kinsman neighborhood:

 

 

And this is what happens when your only means of escaping an approaching hurricane is to drive. This is Houston in 2005, in advance of Hurricane Rita (put this one under bad transportation/evacuation management in which more people died in the escape than they did from the hurricane itself):

 

Ah, remember the days before they began contraflow...

If those southerners had alternative means of transportation then FEMA wouldn't be giving me a big check every time to go down and coordinate vehicles to move the disabled/elderly/poor to safer ground.  It's weird, because seeing photos like that now bring me a smile and $$'s to my eyes... I'm just a horrible person like that.

 

 

  In all fairness, could Houston have been evacuated any better by trains?

 

  In one analysis, it was said that highway planners provided for the possiblity of evacuation in the case of a hurricane way back in the 1950's. Of course, in those days they were figuring on at least 4 people per car.

 

    In the case of Katrina, people who could afford to do so took all the cars they could. Families were split up - dad took the SUV with the boat trailer, mom took the minivan, and the daughter took the compact, all loaded up with stuff. They were trying to protect not only themselve, but their property as well.

 

    Plus, just about everybody waited until the last minute. Even if you could come up with enough trains, how would everyone get to the station?

 

 

  In all fairness, could Houston have been evacuated any better by trains?

 

 

Wrong question. We in this country have fallen into the fallacy of transportation sequentialism in that one mode shall dominate an era, and give way to another in the next. Your comment reminded of that. Why should we have to depend on one mode of transportation? Our over-dependence on the roads today is just as damaging in terms of opportunity costs as was our over-dependence on rail 100 years ago. Our urban centers thrived when rail king but rural areas were left behind. The situation has reversed today with our over-dependence on roads.

 

A diverse transportation system of road, rail, transit, aviation and water modes would succeed nurturing wealth and opportunity in everyday transportation situations today, and would certainly have worked more effectively in emergency evacuations such as that which preceded hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Indeed, the evacuation prior to Hurricane Gustav in 2008 involved cars, planes, buses and trains. Amtrak was hired to deploy two trains to evacuate several thousand people, the equivalent of 50 buses, to Memphis. If Amtrak had sufficient train equipment merely to handle the demand for its day-to-day services, it would have been better able to respond to the evacuation with a more substantial presence. I suspect it could have run shuttle trains every few hours and evacuated 10,000 to 15,000 people (ie: freed up 200 to 300 buses to handle other evacuatons of elderly, low-income and other car-free persons).

So once you put all these people on the train, where do they go then?  It's an honest question. 

 

For example, now that I don't own a car, my options are train and bus, and even in non-emergency times, I have to rely heavily on others to provide me a place to stay, or get me to my final destination upon departing.  You may solve the problem of mobility (at least for the majority of the trip), but are there enough rooms and shelters to support all those people?  Or will they be stuck at the end of the line?  The benefits of cars as a primary means of evacuation is people can travel with what possessions are important to them, and more conveniently reach their families.  I would imagine more people would be adamant to evacuate having to face being crammed onto crowded trains at chaotic platforms.  We aren't going to overbuild train stations and airports to handle mass evacuations.  That's wishful thinking.  It's actually more practical to devise traffic management plans since at this point of time, we are beyond reversing existing population patterns.  In an emergency situation, additional mobility options only solve one part of the complex problem.  You still have to be able to converge a large population to a point of departure, and disperse them at their point of arrival.

 

I hope this all makes sense.  This very topic came up in my transportation planning program.

With Hurricane Gustav, FEMA set up shelters (don't know any more details than that) in Memphis to evacuate New Orleans residents without cars. Memphis was selected because it was far enough north to likely avoid much structural damage, power outages, disruption to basic services, etc. But Memphis is so far north! It's 400 miles away; about an 8-hour ride. I've wondered about the role of trains and buses in a staged evacuation, with the first priority of getting people out of the area of greatest threat to life.

 

If FEMA could set up shelters 100-150 miles inland, trains and buses could shuttle back and forth more quickly and therefore evacuate more people more quickly. Each Superliner passenger coach seats 80 people. With just three 15- to 20-car trainsets (plus baggage cars so people could bring some belongings and pets), trains could depart about every 1.5 to 2 hours and evacuate, or 12 to 16 trains a day, evacuating 14,400 to 25,600 a day. If you had six sets of train equipment available, then you're evacuating 28,800 to 51,200 people in a 24-hour period.

 

  You are making things complicated. Baggage cars? Pets? Those baggage cars are going to have to be loaded and unloaded very quickly in order to get the capacity that you speak of, and I thought that pets as a rule are not allowed on public transportation.

 

   

In an emergency, certainly some limited amount of luggage can be carried on-board without separate loading.  Not that loading luggage really takes that long anyway.  In a real emergency you don't have time to pack much anyway.  Pets in carriers are not too much of a problem if you're only going eight hours away, or less.

 

I wouldn't expect trains to be the only way to evacuate a city, but it certainly can add a lot of capacity, which would free up a lot of space on the roads, which in turn means that everyone gets out of the city that much faster.  And if a main road is washed out it would be even more helpful to have an alternative to driving. 

 

Plan for the worst, hope for the best -- it certainly seems to be prudent to have multiple transportation options for an emergency (bus, rail, private vehicles, etc.)

In an emergency, certainly some limited amount of luggage can be carried on-board without separate loading.  Not that loading luggage really takes that long anyway.  In a real emergency you don't have time to pack much anyway.  Pets in carriers are not too much of a problem if you're only going eight hours away, or less.

 

I wouldn't expect trains to be the only way to evacuate a city, but it certainly can add a lot of capacity, which would free up a lot of space on the roads, which in turn means that everyone gets out of the city that much faster.  And if a main road is washed out it would be even more helpful to have an alternative to driving. 

 

Plan for the worst, hope for the best -- it certainly seems to be prudent to have multiple transportation options for an emergency (bus, rail, private vehicles, etc.)

 

and more importantly free's up street for emergency workers/vehicles and safety forces.

 

  ^--- Oh, I can't argue with that. I figure the more options there are, the better. I just don't agree that building rail transportation is the answer to almost every problem known to man.  :wink:

The

If FEMA could set up shelters 100-150 miles inland, trains and buses could shuttle back and forth more quickly and therefore evacuate more people more quickly. Each Superliner passenger coach seats 80 people. With just three 15- to 20-car trainsets (plus baggage cars so people could bring some belongings and pets), trains could depart about every 1.5 to 2 hours and evacuate, or 12 to 16 trains a day, evacuating 14,400 to 25,600 a day. If you had six sets of train equipment available, then you're evacuating 28,800 to 51,200 people in a 24-hour period.

 

I periodically play the role of a FEMA sub-contractor for such missions and was involved in the evacuations in Louisiana last fall. The hurricane shelters that Louisiana built should be online and ready to go now, but last fall they were in the final phases of construction/readiness. The shelter I was stationed at was one such facility. Because it was considered incomplete, it was assigned missions that kept it's occupancy at less than 10%. So, in the future folks won't have to be taken as far. I know I personally drove folks as far as Shreveport, never heard of anything beyond that, but I have no doubt it happened.

 

We were a group of about 150-190 buses and around 50 handicapped accessible vans.

 

  ^--- Oh, I can't argue with that. I figure the more options there are, the better. I just don't agree that building rail transportation is the answer to almost every problem known to man.   :wink:

 

Ugh. I feel like Mo....

 

http://www.emagazine.com/view/?534

 

COVER STORY

 

Getting Out of Gridlock

Thanks to the Highway Lobby, Now We're Stuck in Traffic. How Do We Escape?

 

by Jim Motavalli

 

Jerry Nichols, a musician, nurse and beer-brewer who lives in suburban Connecticut, has a long morning commute that can double if traffic is bad. His solution is unique to him: Zen-like detachment. “I simply tune it out,” he says. “The traffic can be swirling around me, people can be yelling, honking their horns, and I hardly even hear it.”